Saturday, February 04, 2006

Sunday Morning

Today is Michael's birthday. We are going to see the Fantasticks at Portland Center Stage - it's the last performance.

Today is also Christopher Guest's birthday, as well as William Burroughs. So Michael is in good company.

Holly tried to convince us last night that Brokeback Mountain is a great movie. I haven't seen it. I do know it's taken from a short story written by a woman, and the screenplay was written by a straight couple. Would the script be any different if a gay man had written it? I don't know.

I made a cherry pie for Michael's birthday.

We have an addition to our gnome family. He carries a lantern. Some myths say that gnomes roam at night and during the day turn into toads; other myths say sunlight turns them into stone.

The word gnome derives from the Greek gnosis, meaning knowledge. Some say gnomes hoarded knowledge like treasure.

Others just like how they look in the garden.


Le Plume said...

About Brokeback mountain: haven't seen it either - which is a great start for discussing the movie I'm sure.

Actually, what is prompting this comment is not the movie itself, but the fact that you seem to think, or feel, that because a story about masculine homoeroticism is written or made into a movie by people who are not gay males, it is somehow suspect, or of less value. I'm probably distorting what you said here - but still: do you think that, in general, someone has to be part of something to talk about that something?

Please feel free to junk my comment if you feel it's got nothing to do here.

caffeine destiny said...

Ah, but I said, would the script be any different.. I don't know. I didn't say I knew.

No I don't believe you have to be part of something to discuss it. But outsiders are often portrayed by insiders, so that the outsiders still remain.. outside.

That's all.